Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20GDCV00753, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20GDCV00753    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: 3

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

 

 

JOEY TIONGSON ;

 

Plaintiff,

 

 

vs.

 

 

JACK DIRAMARIAN , et al.,

 

Defendants.

Case No.:

20GDCV00753

 

 

Hearing Date:

August 23, 2022

 

 

Time:

8:30 a.m.

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

 

 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF JOEY TIONGSON’S APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Jack Diramarian

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Joey Tiongson

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Joey Tiongson’s Appearance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with the motion. No opposition was filed.

 

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Joey Tiongson filed this action on September 18, 2020 against Defendants Jack Diramarian (“Defendant”) and Scientific Automotive.

            On June 1, 2022, Defendant served a notice of deposition of Plaintiff with a deposition date of July 14, 2022. (Weber Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that in light of counsel’s pending motion to be relieved as counsel, a deposition may not be possible until Plaintiff retains new counsel. (Weber Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Defendant’s counsel offered to move the date within a week of the initial deposition date, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. (Weber Decl., ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. E.) Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on July 14, 2022. (Weber Decl., ¶ 8.) On July 14, 2022, Defendant’s counsel telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the nonappearance but received no response. (Weber Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.)

            Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear at deposition and requests monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may obtain discovery by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) Service of a proper deposition notice is “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280, subd. (a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party fails to appear for examination or fails to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice, without having served a valid objection under section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling attendance or production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Such a motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

            The court finds that a proper deposition notice was served, and that Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition and failed to serve a valid objection to the deposition notice. The court also finds that Defendant satisfied his meet and confer requirements. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, the court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted and that the amount requested, less the amount of time estimated for a reply (1 hour), is reasonable. (Weber Decl., ¶¶ 16-18.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel.

The court orders Plaintiff Joey Tiongson to appear for and testify at deposition to be taken by Defendant Jack Diramarian on a date and time to be determined by Defendant.

The court orders Plaintiff to pay Defendant $1,935 within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED:  August 23, 2022

 

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court